James Dobson, Theocrat
Tags: James Dobson, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, 2008 election, primary elections
Guess Fred Thompson, like me, isn’t worthy of one of these, although interestingly, Newt Gingrich apparently is.
Pfffft. Who made James Dobson the universal spokesman for Christians? I know ONE person who cares about his opinion, and she doesn’t seem to mind that I’m not an Evangelical Christian, nor does she appear to have a problem with Fred Thompson (and I’m certain, knowing her intellectual honesty, that she wouldn’t mistake Newt Gingrich as an Evangelical Christian, either). I have another very good friend who’s a very devout Christian (an observant Pentecostal, no less), and I’m certain she couldn’t care less what Dobson says.
Not that any of this matters, of course. Since when was being an evangelical/born again Christian a requirement? And is George W. Bush the first President for whom he’s ever voted in his long life? I don’t recall Ronald Reagan being much of a problem for born-again Christians, after all. Are conservatives not really conservative if they (we) aren’t born-again Christians? And then will someone please inform Nancy Reagan that her husband was a liberal (especially with that acting history!)?
Here’s an idea, since James Dobson is such an attention whore: Dobson should run for President. Let’s just see how many people would support his candidacy, versus that of any of the already-running or other likely candidates (yes, including that heathen* Rudy Giuliani or the cult member* Romney). Something tells me that evangelicals would rather have a President who isn’t an evangelical him- or herself if he or she hasn’t built his entire career on damning everyone else who doesn’t share the same faith.
I’m a social conservative, but I’m thoroughly disgusted with the so-called “religious right” leadership. It is they who have lost more elections for conservatives and alienated more voters than I care to count, and it’s they who will tank the Republicans in 2008. (I’m sure they’ll find Hillary or Obama acceptable, won’t they? “That’ll teach those Republicans a lesson,” won’t it?) Sorry, but right now all those social issues, as much as I *do* care about them, take a back seat to the war on terror for me and, I suspect, most other Americans. I’m definitely not a single-issue voter, but I look at it this way during these times: Bush has been President for six years and abortion is still legal, the idea of gay marriage is becoming more accepted by society (I personally don’t care either way), and our culture in general is certainly not becoming more conservative–quite the opposite, much to my never-ending aggravation. So what difference is it gonna make if a non-evangelical like Fred Thompson is elected versus an evangelical? Especially when “Christian” (meaning “born again” in this context) includes someone like Newt Gingrich (who isn’t gonna be elected anyway)? And does this mean socially conservative Jews can’t ever be President as well, at least according to attention-whoring, judgmental types like Dobson? What about Catholics or (omg!) Orthodox Christians?
Does anyone really care what James Dobson has to say about who “should” be the Republican nominee, anyway?
Slublog says, “James Dobson continues his campaign for political irrelevance.” I’ll give that an AMEN.
Thanks to Dave in Texas, who says all the above quite pithily in one simple sentence.
UPDATE: Dobson “apologizes,” but says the same thing in doing so. What a tool. “Apologies” not necessary–he needs to repent. :roll:
* obviously said with sarcasm
Dave in Texas says:
eh heh heh heh.
I’m a simple communicator.
Beth says:
No, you’re just not long-winded like I am. ;-)
Beth says:
And how hilarious is it that there’s a big huge Google ad for Rudy Giuliani (below) on a post about Dobson! HAHA!
Bratty Brother says:
“Does anyone really care what James Dobson has to say about who “should” be the Republican nominee, anyway? ”
Er, you obviously do, you just did a four paragraph post about it.
/runs away
:mrgreen:
Beth says:
HAR HAR. You’d better run, brat! :razz:
chris says:
Ok, can of worms time. To me, there is no such thing as a social or a religious conservative. People like Dobson are not conservative. They are for or against gov’t interference when it gets them their way. Take abortion vs gay marriage. Neither mentioned in the constitution, therefore, both should fall under states rights (10th ammendment). Someone like Dobson will invoke states rights (and he would be correct in doing so) to show why Roe is bad law. But he does so only to get things to go his way (bans in some states immediately, leaving fewer battle grounds to fight for bans). It gets him his way and closer to his goal of society shaped his way. Now look at gay marriage. Let a state pass it or have it’s court system state that the state’s constitution demands gay marriage (a legit application of states rights), these non-cons are up front demanding a federal solution to it. Can you say DOMA? So much for limited government.
You can’t pick and choose your government interference and be a conservative. Period. If federal interference is bad for one (abortion) it is bad for the other (gay marriage).
**You don’t always get the outcome you like** taking the conservative approach. That does not mean you change the rules or beliefs. People like Dobson do not care about that technicality. Thus they are non-cons, not neo-cons. They are no different in principal than the left. Just different in their end goals.
Beth says:
I’d say you’re exactly right, Chris. He’s definitely FOR activist judges, as long as they agree with him. Abortion is a perfect example. I’m not pro-life because of my religious beliefs; I am because I believe it violates the right to life (liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). I want constructionist judges because I DO believe the Constitution is on my side of the issue, including if it’s decided to leave it to the states. He and those who want activist judges on their side don’t even seem to get the problem with doing that. If you pick an activist, you may be sorely disappointed when their political views/values change over the years–as Sandra Day O’Connor showed us.
Basil's Blog » Blog Archive » Blogrolling 2007-03-30 says:
[...] Beth (MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) isn't thrilled with James Dobson. [...]
CT says:
Amen, Beth. The Christian conservatives are gonna blow it for the right in this election for one stupid reason or another. Our only hope is that the nutball fringe on the left is larger and will screw it for the Dems.
I’m socially conservative on some issues myself, but I will never support people like Dobson. They can all go to hell.
wytammic says:
I guess the “religious right” could turn this very argument around on you — the almighty social conservative.
With an attitude like this, Republicans are doomed to lose numerous more elections. Good job. At least you recognize that you work with us, or you lose. Simple. Thanks for playing.
Wytammic says:
Wow, since my comment was already up — I assume it is not waiting to be moderated. I’ll just assume that you’ve realized the errors of your ways and didn’t want my comment up here to remind you of them. This I would expect on a leftwinged blog. Quite perplexing.
Wytammic says:
Scratch that — now it is up again :)
Mrs. Dobson says:
Does anyone really care what James Dobson has to say about who “should” be the Republican nominee, anyway?
Me.
Dobson Kid Who Doesn't Want To Get Spanked says:
Me too!!!
Beth says:
Wytammic, Feel better about yourself today now? Is that the way you normally try to convince people you’re right? LOL. Say hello to irrelevance. He’s standing right next to Dr. Dobson.
Dobson Kid: Children should be seen and not heard, brat!!! :mrgreen:
wytammic says:
Well, yes. Thanks for asking.
GOP Vixen says:
James Dobson went and got all holier-than-Fred…
Please tell me that other Republicans also find it supremely annoying that Mr. Focus on the Family sits on high and casts lightning bolts at candidates who don’t fit his definition of an acceptable believer while making like his voting…